5 Oct 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant asked for a copy of a noise report and correspondence between named individuals regarding the report. During the Commissioner’s investigation, Bath and North East Somerset Council (the Council) published the noise report. Regarding the requested correspondence, it has disclosed information, but withheld other information under the exception for third party personal information. The complainant is unhappy about the time taken by the Council to provide an internal review. They also consider that further correspondence is held in scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds no further information in scope of the request. However, he finds that the Council breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR as it did not provide its internal review outcome within 40 working days; and breached regulation 5(2) in respect of an email chain that was disclosed late, during the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner does n
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(2)
View Bath and North East Somerset Council
5 Oct 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (“Ofqual”) relating to communications between the Secretary of State’s office and the Chief Regulators. Ofqual refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests).The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not a vexatious request. The Commissioner requires Ofqual to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Issue a fresh response to the complainant, which does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.Ofqual must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation
5 Oct 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to HM Treasury (HMT) for information relating to a meeting between HMT and Binance. HMT refused to provide some of the requested information, citing sections 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy, 40(2) (personal data of third parties) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT has correctly relied on sections 35(1)(a) and 43(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0445 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 43
View HM Treasury
5 Oct 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on, and a copy of a redacted inspection report for, MBR Acres. The Home Office provided some information within the scope of the request but refused to provide the remainder, citing sections 36(2)(b)(ii) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs), 44(1)(a) (prohibitions on disclosure), 38(1)(a) and (b) (health and safety) and 40 (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office is entitled to apply section 36(2)(b(ii) of FOIA to refuse to disclose the withheld information and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner require no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Home Office
4 Oct 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Incident Command Logs for ‘Insulate Britain’ and ‘Just Stop Oil’ from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS refused to provide the requested information citing sections 30(1)(a) (Investigations and proceedings), 31(1)(a)(b) (Law enforcement) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS has failed to clearly identify what information is being withheld under sections 30 / 31 of FOIA. As these are mutually exclusive he has determined that neither is engaged. The complainant is happy for any personal information to be redacted so names / contact details can be withheld. The Commissioner requires the MPS to disclose the logs, after any personal information, and information about other events, has been redacted. Information Tribunal FTT appeal EA/2023/0464 consent order.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30; FOI 31
View Metropolitan Police Service
4 Oct 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Westminster District Council (the Council) provide information in respect of staff in the education department that are involved with elective home education. The Council provided some information. It withheld the remaining information under section 40(2) (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information engages section 40(2) as to disclose it would breach the data protection principles.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Westminster Council
4 Oct 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Ilfracombe Infant and Nursery School (IINS) regarding staff turnover, financial settlements and non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) agreed for exiting staff from academic year 2018/19 to the current academic year to date. The IINS disclosed some relevant information but neither confirmed nor denied holding the remaining information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the IINS was entitled to rely on section 40(5B) (personal information) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether some of the requested information was held.The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
4 Oct 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the University of Derby (‘the University’) doesn’t hold the requested information about trigger warnings and complied with section 1(1)(a) of FOIA. It’s not necessary for the University to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
4 Oct 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Southwark (the Council). By the date of this notice the Council had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Southwark Council
4 Oct 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the most recent minutes of meetings for the Police Federation of England and Wales (the PFEW) National Board and Conduct and Performance Sub-committee. The PFEW refused the request, citing sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PFEW was entitled to rely on sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) to refuse the request. However, the PFEW breached section 17 of FOIA as it failed to provide an adequate refusal notice which included its Public Interest Test (PIT) and details of the qualified persons opinion. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 36(2)
4 Oct 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) to disclose some training materials. FOS refused to disclose the requested information, citing section 43 of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation FOS decided to disclose some information to the complainant. For the remainder, the Commissioner is satisfied that section 43 of FOIA applies. The Commissioner has recorded a breach of section 1 and 10 of FOIA for failing to disclose information to the complainant to which they were entitled, within 20 working days of the receipt of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 43
4 Oct 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested legal advice relating to a planning application. Kirklees Council (the “council”) refused to provide the requested information citing the exceptions for internal communications (regulation 12(4)(e)) and the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal EA/2023/0460 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Kirklees Council
3 Oct 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a hypothetical State Pension High Income Charge (SPHIC) . The Department for Work and Pensions (“DWP”) stated that it did not hold information within scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, DWP does not hold information within scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Work and Pensions
3 Oct 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking a copy of the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson’s, ministerial diary for the period 1 March 2020 to 16 April 2020. The Cabinet Office refused the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious requests) FOIA, based on the grossly oppressive burden that complying with the request would impose. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 14(1) FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. No further steps are required. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2024/0027 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Cabinet Office
3 Oct 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO is entitled to withhold information associated with a complaint case under section 44(1) of FOIA as there’s a prohibition on its disclosure. It’s not necessary for the ICO to take any corrective steps. Information Tribunal EA/2023/0465 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Information Commissioner
3 Oct 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made two requests relating to planning enforcement and building enforcement records for an outbuilding at a particular address. The London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (‘LBRUT’) considered both requests jointly given they relate to the same matter. Ultimately, LBRUT disclosed some of the requested information with redactions under Regulation 13(1) (third party personal data). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, LBRUT located additional emails which it disclosed, with Regulation 13(1) redactions. The complainant remained concerned solely with the withholding of the internal measurements of the outbuilding and floorplan under Regulation 13(1) and the delay in responding to his requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that LBRUT was entitled to withhold the internal measurements under Regulation 13(1) of the EIR for the reasons set out in this notice. However, LBRUT breached Regulation 5(2) of the EIR as it took over the statutory maximum of 40 workin
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1); EIR 5(2)
View Richmond upon Thames Council
3 Oct 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested communications between Liz Truss, when she was Prime Minister, [6 September – 25 October 2022], and the former Prince of Wales, now King Charles III, regarding the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 27). The Cabinet Office relied on EIR regulation 12(4)(a) – information not held and FOIA section 37(2) – communications with Her Majesty by virtue of section 37(1)(a) and (aa), to neither confirm or deny holding any information in response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) and FOIA section 37(2).The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
3 Oct 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Legal Ombudsman (LO) is entitled to refuse an aspect of the complainant’s request for information about service complaints under section 12(1) of FOIA. This is because it would exceed the appropriate cost limit to comply with it. There’s been no breach of section 16(1) of FOIA, which concerns advice and assistance. It’s not necessary for the LO to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View The Legal Ombudsman
3 Oct 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to grazing rights and new common land applications. The Rural Payments Agency (“RPA”) disclosed some information but withheld other information, citing regulation 12(3) (personal information) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages regulation 12(3) of the EIR and to disclose it would breach the data protection principles. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal EA/2023/0455 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(3)
View Rural Payments Agency
2 Oct 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Monmouthshire County Council (the Council) for the correspondence in relation to their FOI request.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 40(1) of FOIA to withhold the requested information.The Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(1)
View Monmouthshire County Council
2 Oct 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Ministry of Defence (“MoD”) all information contained in two files that are mentioned in The National Archives but which are still retained by MoD. MoD refused to provide this information citing section 23 (security bodies) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that MoD is entitled to rely on section 23 as its basis for refusing to provide the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Ministry of Defence
2 Oct 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about DHSC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. DHSC originally refused the request under section 35(1) of FOIA (formulation of government policy) but subsequently disclosed the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that DHSC breached sections 1(1)(b), 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA. This is because it didn’t communicate the requested information, or issue a refusal notice initially, within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. It’s not necessary for DHSC to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17
View Department of Health and Social Care
2 Oct 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to maternity services at University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). The Trust provided some information to the complainant and stated other information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Trust has provided all of the information it holds falling within the scope of the request, and therefore it has complied with section 1 of the FOIA. The Commissioner finds the Trust breached section 10 (time limits for compliance) of FOIA by not responding to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust
2 Oct 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a five-part request for information relating to recovering the costs of removing damage caused by graffiti. Transport for London (TfL) refused to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of part 1 of the request, denied holding information falling within the scope of part 2 of the request, and refused to provide the information it held in relation to parts 3-5 of the request under sections 31, 38 and 43. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL was entitled to rely on section 31(3) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held the information requested in part 1 of the request, and section 31(1)(a) to withhold the information requested in parts 3-5 of the request. The Commissioner does not require TfL to take further steps. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0433 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a); FOI 31(3)
View Transport for London
2 Oct 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from HM Treasury (“HMT”) relating to previous FOIA request. HMT refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore HMT was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require any steps. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0462 appeal allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View HM Treasury
29 Sep 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the number of complaints made against Dr Eljamel. The GMC refused to provide the requested information under section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GMC isn’t entitled to withhold the requested information under section 40(2). The Commissioner requires the GMC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View GMC
29 Sep 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
29 Sep 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Humberside Police. As of the date of this notice, Humberside Police has not issued a substantive response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Humberside Police
29 Sep 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to costs of staff sickness pay for Oxford City Council (the Council) and Oxford Direct Services (ODS) covering four years. The Council provided the actual costs in respect of ODS and an estimate in respect of its own costs. The Council applied section 12(1) of FOIA (cost limit) to the sickness absence costs for its own staff. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA. However, the Commissioner finds that the Council did not comply with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA to offer advice and assistance.The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Either provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help them refine the request such that it falls within the cost limit; or If the request cannot be meaningfully refined, explain why this is the case.The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 17(5)
View Oxford City Council
29 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested data relating to child protection cases. Gwynedd Council (“the Council”) provided some of the information requested but withheld the rest under Section 40(2) (personal data) and 12(1) (cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit) of the FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that Gwynedd Council has correctly relied on section 12(1) of the FOIA. He has therefore not gone on to consider the application of section 40(2).The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View Gwynedd Council
29 Sep 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
29 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the BBC about BBC Verify and related information. The BBC responded that the requested information was covered by the derogation and hence excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information, if held at all, is held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and so was not covered by FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View BBC
29 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Cherwell District Council (“the Council”) relating to the submission of FOI requests submitted via WhatDoTheyKnow.com or by any third party means. The Council stated that it did not hold any information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Cherwell District Council
29 Sep 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Wandsworth (the Council) about proposed developments and the related feasibility studies (IC-234146-Q0P5). The Council stated it required more time to carry out the Public Interest Test (PIT) which it eventually conceded was not necessary and disclosed the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of FOIA, in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Council has now provided its response. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Wandsworth
29 Sep 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a ‘meta request’ to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) seeking copies of internal communications concerning its refusal of a previous FOI request he had submitted to it. DCMS withheld the information falling within the scope of the meta request on the basis of sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii). The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of these exemptions and that for the majority of the information the public interest in favour of maintaining the exemptions outweighs the public interest in disclosure. However, for some of the information withheld on the basis of section 36(2)(b)(ii) the Commissioner has decided that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
29 Sep 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
28 Sep 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
28 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Chief Constable of North Wales Police (North Wales Police) for information regarding a specific road traffic accident.The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, North Wales Police does not hold any information within the scope of the request and has therefore complied with section 1(1) of FOIA.The Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View North Wales Police
28 Sep 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning correspondence and meetings between Daniel Korski and DCMS which concern Public Group or its clients.DCMS confirmed that they held information within scope of the request but that this information was exempt from disclosure under section 36(2)(b)(ii) of FOIA (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and that the balance of the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption.The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36 is not engaged in this case as the information withheld by DCMS is not information within scope of the complainant’s request. Consequently, the Commissioner has found that DCMS breached section 1(1) of FOIA by not providing a response to the information request made by the complainant. The Commissioner has also found that DCMS breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that they took in excess of 20 working days to provide a response to the request.The Commissioner requires DCMS to take the following steps to ensur
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
28 Sep 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a planning enforcement matter relating to their property. East Riding of Yorkshire Council disclosed some information but withheld some under regulation 12(4)(e) (Internal communications) and regulation 12(5)(f) (Interests of the information provider) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(f) and has otherwise disclosed all held recorded information. However, the Council breached the requirement of regulation 5(2) (Time for compliance) in disclosing information out of time. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View East Riding of Yorkshire Council
28 Sep 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Summary wording for website: The complainant submitted a request to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) seeking information about a decision, previously communicated to him, that the department did not have a role to play in upholding the Cabinet Office Code of Conduct for Board Members of Public Bodies with regards members of the Channel 4 board. DCMS provided some information falling within the scope of the request with redactions on the basis of section 40 (personal data) of FOIA. It also withheld further information on the basis of section 36(2)(b)(i) (effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 36(2)(b)(i) but that the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner has also concluded that DCMS breached sections 17(3) and 17(5) of FOIA as a result of its delayed response
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 36
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
28 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from South Hams District Council (the Council) regarding internal communications in relation to a specific planning application. The Council disclosed some information but withheld the rest under Regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council disclosed further information but withheld the remainder under Regulation 12(4) (e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has successfully engaged Regulation 12(4(e) with the public interest balanced in favour of withholding the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal EA/2023/0477 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View South Hams District Council
28 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request for information about a professional conduct panel hearing carried out by the Teaching Regulatory Agency (TRA). The TRA is an executive agency of the Department for Education (DfE) and so DfE is the appropriate public authority for the purposes of FOIA. DfE withheld the information under section 40 and section 38 of FOIA, which concern personal data and health and safety respectively. DfE has subsequently confirmed that it’s also relying on section 36(2)(c) to withhold the information, which concerns prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that DfE is entitled to withhold the requested information under section 36(2)(c) of FOIA. It’s not necessary for DfE to take any corrective steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0419 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Education
28 Sep 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested documents provided to an independent reviewer. The above public authority provided some information but the complaint considers more is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority has provided all the information it holds in recorded form. The public authority breached section 10 of FOIA as it provided some of the information it held outside of the 20 working day timeframe. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Trust
28 Sep 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
27 Sep 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to specific planning application. Dartmoor National Park Authority (“the public authority”) disclosed information in response to the request and withheld some under regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications). The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the public authority has now identified all information that falls within the scope of the request and the information that’s been redacted falls out of the scope of the request. The withheld information doesn’t engage regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications). The public authority has breached regulation 5(2) (timescale for compliance). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: any information that falls within scope of the request, and was withheld under regulation 12(4)(e), must be disclosed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Dartmoor National Park Authority
27 Sep 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a proposed Traffic Regulation Order. Bristol City Council (the “council”) disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exception for internal communications (regulation 12(4)(e)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council initially wrongly handled the request under the FOIA and breached regulation 5(1) and regulation 14; that it failed to respond to the request in time and breached regulation 5(2) and regulation 11(4) but that it correctly withheld some information under regulation 12(4)(e) and correctly confirmed that additional information was not held in accordance with regulation 12(4)(a). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 14; EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Bristol City Council
27 Sep 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from HM Treasury (HMT) regarding the minutes and other recorded information of Loan Charge Review meetings held on two specific dates. The Commissioner’s decision is: HMT was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(a), 31(1)(d), 35(1)(a) and 42(1). HMT was not entitled to rely on either section 40(5B) or section 41(2) to refuse to confirm or deny whether further information was held. HMT failed to identify all relevant information within the scope of the request or issue a refusal notice within 20 working days and therefore breached sections 10 and 17 of FOIA respectively. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Confirm or deny whether it holds information relating to the four meetings it identified in its correspondence to the complainant dated 11 August 2023; If information is held, either provide that information or issue a refusal notice in accordance with section 17 o
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 31; FOI 40(5)(b); FOI 41; FOI 42(1); FOI 42(1)
View HM Treasury
27 Sep 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about responses to a consultation. The above public authority initially relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (personal data) to withhold the information, but disclosed it during the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority disclosed information outside of the 20 working day timeframe and therefore breached section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust
27 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a decision not to challenge the salary of the Chief Executive of a particular academy. The above public authority stated that it held no information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority has complied with its duties under section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal EA/2023/0456 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Education